Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:30:52.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microrefuse and Site Structure: The Hearths and Floors of the Heartbreak Hotel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Duncan Metcalfe  and
Kathleen M. Heath
Duncan Metcalfe
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Kathleen M. Heath
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a research project investigating the types, frequencies, and spatial distribution of small items of refuse on and in floors of a prehistoric structure–the Heartbreak Hotel–excavated in central Utah. Excavation and analytical procedures specifically were designed to recover microrefuse–refuse with a minimum dimension of less than .25 cm. There is strong empirical support for the proposition that microrefuse recovered from such contexts will be found in its area of production, and that patterning in its spatial distribution will, other things being equal, indicate spatial patterning in the performance of the activities that produced the microrefuse. We demonstrate that there is rather dramatic patterning in the types and frequencies of microrefuse between and within rooms of the structure and discuss possible explanations for the character of that patterning. We conclude with a discussion of the present limitations of our understanding of refuse disposal and suggest avenues of ethnoarchaeological inquiry likely to produce better archaeological and behavioral expectations relating to spatial patterning of microrefuse.

Résumé

Résumé

Este artículo presenta los resultados de un proyecto de investigación acerca de los tipos, frecuencias y área de distribución de objetos pequeños de desecho en los pisos de una estructura prehistórica, el Hotel Heartbreak, excavado en la parte central de Utah. Los procedimientos de excavación y de análisis fueron especificamente designados para recoger objetos de desecho minúsculos, que poseyeran dimensiones de menos de .25 cm. Existe suficiente evidencia empírica como para proponer que estos pequeños objetos de desecho, obtenidos en sus propios contextos, podrían ser encontrados en el lugar de su productión, y que el área se podría dividir en espacios que corresponderían a las distintas actividades que produjeron los desperdicios, siempre teniendo en cuenta que todo lo demás permanezca igual. Alegamos que existe una clara distribución de tipos y frecuencias de objetos de desecho tanto entre distintas estructuras como dentro de cada una de éstas, y también proponemos posibles argumentos que puedan explicar el carácter de dicha distributión. Concluímos con un examen de las limitaciones que actualmente nos impiden un entedimiento más amplio de los objetos pequeños de desecho y sugerimos formas de investigatión etnográfica y arqueológica que puedan ofrecernos mejores expectativas arqueológicas y etnográfkas en lo que se refiere a la distributión de desechos pequeños

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 781 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Aikens, C. M. 1967 Excavations at Snake Rock Village and the Bear River No. 2 Site. Anthropological Papers No. 87. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Beebe, N. H. F. 1980 PLOT ‘ 79. Department of Physics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43: 330–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Reference and Site Structure. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by Kent, S., pp. 449–512. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Buckland, P. C, Sveinbjarnardottir, G., Savory, D., McGovern, T. H., Skidmore, P., and Andreasen, C. 1983 Norsemen at Nipaitsoq, Greenland: A Palaeoecological Investigation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 16: 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, R. 1982 Plant Macrofossils from Nawthis Village. Paper presented at the 18th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
Deal, M. 1985 Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya Highlands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 243–291.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R., and Lathrap, D. W. 1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, edited by Kramer, C., pp. 102–138. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fladmark, K. R. 1982 Microdebitage Analysis: Initial Considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 208–220.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1986 Guila Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V., and Winter, M. C. 1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 34—47. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gilford, D. P. 1978 Natural Processes Affecting Cultural Materials. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by Gould, R. A., pp. 77–101. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. P., and Behrensmeyer, A. 1977 Observed Formation and Burial of a Recent Human Occupation Site in Kenya. Quaternary Research 8: 245–266.Google Scholar
Gifford-Gonzalez, D., Damrosch, D. B., Damrosch, D. R., Pryor, J., and Thunen, R. 1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 50: 803–818.Google Scholar
Graham, M., Raish, C., and Sebastian, L. 1982 Site Structure and Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Haliksa'1 1: 110–119.Google Scholar
Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. 1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, K. M., and Metcalfe, D. 1984 Analysis of Plant Macrofossils and Microrefuse. In Gooseberry Archeological Project: 1983, edited by Metcalfe, D., pp. 86–110. University of Utah Archeological Center Reports of Investigations No. 83-1. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hull, K. L. 1987 Identification of Cultural Site Formation Processes Through Microdebitage Analysis. American Antiquity 52: 772–783.Google Scholar
Jarman, H. N., Legge, A. J., and Charles, J. A. 1972 Retrievals of Plant Remains from Archaeological Sites by Froth Flotation. In Problems in Economic Prehistory, edited by Higgs, E. S., pp. 39–48. Cambridge University, London.Google Scholar
Larrabee, L. V. 1984 Late-Holocene Alluvial History of Gooseberry Valley and Its Relation to Fremont Culture. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Geography, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Mac Neish, R. S., Fowler, M. L., Cook, A. G., Peterson, F. A., Nelken-Terner, A., and Neely, J. 1975 Excavations and Reconnaissance, edited by R. S. Mac Neish. The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 5. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Madsen, M. E. 1988 Microdebitage Analysis of Lithic Material in a Northwest Coast Shell Midden. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
McGovern, T. H., Buckland, P. C., Savory, D., Sveinbjarnardottir, G., Andreasen, C., and Skidmore, P. 1983 A Study of the Faunal and Floral Remains from Two Norse Farms in the Western Settlement, Greenland. Arctic Anthropology 20: 93–111.Google Scholar
McKellar, J. A. 1983 Correlates and the Explanation of Distributions. Atlatl 4. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W., Coles, N. E., Davis, F. D., Greenwood, G. M., Harrison, W. M., and Bain, E. H. Mac 1956 Archeological Excavations in Iron County, Utah. Anthropological Papers No. 25. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, D. (editor) 1984 Gooseberry Archeological Project: 1983. University of Utah Archeological Center Reports of Investigations No. 83-1. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, D., and Larrabee, L. V. 1985 Fremont Irrigation: Evidence from Gooseberry Valley, Central Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7: 244–254.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, D., and Connell, J. F. O. 1979 Preliminary Report: Archeological Research at Nawthis Village, 1979. University of Utah Archeological Center Reports of Investigations No. 79-27. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
J. F., O. Connell 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52: 74–108.Google Scholar
O. Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K., and Jones, N. Blurton 1990 Distribution of Refuse Producing Activities at Hadza Residential Base Camps: Implications for Analyses of Archaeological Site Structure. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Kroll, E. M. and Price, T. D.. Plenum Press, New York, in press.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. M. 1986 Cities of Clay: The Geoarcheology of Tells. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. M. 1989 Ancient Town and City Sites: A View from the Microscope. American Antiquity 54: 564–578.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37: 156–165.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48: 675–706.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Simms, S. R. 1988 The Archaeological Structure of a Bedouin Camp. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 197–211.Google Scholar
Simms, S. R., and Heath, K. M. 1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of Ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity 55: 797–813.Google Scholar
Stein, J. K., and Teltser, P. A. 1989 Size Distributions of Artifact Classes: Combining Macro-and Micro-Fractions. Geoarchaeology 4: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, P. S. 1985 Modelling Lithic Refuse Disposal Patterns: A Test Case from the Tower Group (42SV633), Nawthis Village, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Vance, E. D. 1987 Microdebitage and Archaeological Activity Analyses. Archaeology 40(4): 58–59.Google Scholar
Villa, P., and Courtin, J. 1983 The Interpretation of Stratified Sites: A View from the Underground. Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 267–281.Google Scholar
Wall, K. 1973 Primary and Secondary Refuse at the KOA Campground. Ms. on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1973 Spatial Analysis of Palaeolithic Occupation Areas. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 115–130. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar